Obligations Imposed 

by the Ownership of 

Cut-Over Lands 



By 

CLEMENT S. UCKER 

Vice-President Southern Settlement and Development Organization 
Baltimore, Md. 




Address Before The 
Third Annual Meeting 

Southern Pine Association 

New Orleans, La., 
February 19-20, 1918 



Obligations Imposed by the 
Ownership of Cut-Over 
^TjL^^ Lands 

By Clement S. Ucker, Vice President Sou- 
thern Settlement and Development 



Organization 

Baltimore, Md. 



IT WAS my very good fortune, as well as a great pleasure, to 
have been with you gentlemen in April, 1917, on the occasion 
of your holding the great Cut-Over Land Conference, in fact, 
it was my privilege to have presided for two days over that gather- 
ing. It was also my privilege to be with you in September last, 
and to have further addressed you on that occasion. 

I naturally felt somewhat reticent with respect to any further 
remarks in the premises. It must, of necessity, begin to appeal 
to the minds of some of you that I have covered practically all 
phases of this so-called cut-over land problem in some of my various 
addresses to you. Notwithstanding all of this, I could not but 
accept the recent invitation extended to me by your officers to be 
with you on this occasion and to discuss another phase of the topic, 
viz, Ob'igalioraS Imposed by the Ownership of Cut-Over Lands. 

In consideration of this subject, it is obviously necessary that 
we give some brief consideration to the general conditions now 
existing — those that must of necessity have more or less bearing 
upon any effort, however great or however small, that may be 
made, by the lumber operators and the producers of and the owners 
of these cut-over lands to solve their so-called cut-over land 
problem. 

The Diminishing Public Domain. 

You have very often heard of late, the expression used, "the 
public dom.ain is gone." It is, in fact, substantially gone. Accord- 
ing to the figures of the Commissioner of the General Land Office 



at Washington, there were remaining at the end of the fiscal year, 
June 30th, 1917, as yet unappropriated in the public domain of 
Continental United States, 230,657,755 acres of land. This 230,- 
657,755 acres, you must remember, necessarily contain the "culls." 
They are, in part, at least, the mountain tops, the mountain sides, 
the more or less inaccessible semi-arid areas, marsh and swamp 
areas and land of very low productive power — literally the "culls." 

Notwithstanding all of this, it is noted that the operation of 
the so-called 640 acre homestead law, between the date of its enact- 
ment, December 29th, 1916, and August 1st, 1917, upon which date 
we have the latest available figures, resulted in the appropriation 
of 23,963,456 acres. In other words. Congress by increasing the 
area per homesteader from 160 to 640 acres of lands admittedly 
less valuable and of less potential possibilities, thereby stimulated 
homesteading of the remainder of the public domain to the extent 
of 23,000,000 acres in a little over seven months of time. 

All of this is mentioned to bring out the obvious deduction that 
the land hunger of our people is not yet quite satisfied and that the 
vast balance sheet of public domain in the hands of the Federal 
Government is about exhausted, and that we must look elsewhere 
in the future and through other sources to satisfy this world old 
yearning of our people for land ownership and land possession. 

Let us bear in mind that on July 1st, 1917, as I stated above, 
we still had 230,657,755 acres of land in the public domain. Let 
us also bear in mind that east of the Mississippi River — Wisconsin, 
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida 
were public land States and that west of the river every single 
State v/as a public land State with the exception of the State of 
Texas, which, by the compact which admitted her to the Union, 
retained and administered within her own borders all her unappro- 
priated lands — so that the 230,657,755 acres represents what is 
left in all that vast area. 

Canada's Feat of Colonization. 

From 1900 onv/ard we witness another very remarkable move- 
ment — the peopling and appropriation for agricultural purposes, of 
the public domain or free homestead lands of Western Canada. 
That was largely accomplished with and through the very best 
blood and the very best types of our American farmers. It is not 
necessary here to go into in detail the elaborate carefully planned 
campaign that brought this about. It is sufi'icient for our purpose 



to know that the free public domain of Western Canada is 
practically exhausted. 

Now let us note that we have approximately 300,000,000 acres 
of cut-over lands in the South Atlantic and Gulf States. In other 
words, the frontier is rapidly shifting. The responsibility for 
satisfying land hunger is passing from the Federal Government, 
whose balance of public domain is rapidly diminishing on to the 
shoulders of those who now own or who are now producing the 
next available area which is far more desirable and adaptable, viz, 
the Southern Cut-Over Lands. The only difference, or in fact the 
great fundamental difference, is that the public domain was free 
so far as cost in dollars and cents per acre was concerned and the 
cut-over lands, being in private ownership, must necessarily carry 
some fixed cost in dollars and cents per acre. In the case of Govern- 
ment land while there is no cost per acre there was a service to be 
performed, generally five years of actual residence with cultivation 
and improvement. So much for the land phase. 

Now let us note a very pertinent factor in consideration of 
present day conditions. 

A Decreasing Percentage of Rural Residents. 

In 1880 the total population of the United States was 
50,155,783. Of these 14,772,438, or 29.59. , resided in cities, and 
the remainder, 35,383,345, or 70.5% resided in the country. 

The Census of 1890, ten years later, gives us a total population 
of 62,947,714, of which 22,720,223, or 36.1%, resided in cities and 
the remainder 40,227,491, or 63.9%, resided in the country. 

The Census of 1900 gives us a population of 75,994,575, of 
which 30,797,185, or 40.5%, were in the cities, and 45,197,390, or 
59.5%, were rural or resided in the country. 

Now the last Census, 1910, gives us a population of 91,972,266, 
of which 42,623,383, or 46.3% , resided in the cities and 49,348,883, 
or 53.7 %i, remained in the country. 

Taking the mid-census estimate as made by the Bureau of 
Census in the Department of Commerce, the total population of 
the United States was in 1917, 105,118,000. Applying the running 
ratio of shift from urban to city from 1880 to 1910, to the estimated 
population of 105,118,000 in 1917, our present division between 
urban -^nd rural population should be expressed in a ratio of 50% 
to 50 ?4. 

From this you will note that since 1880 there has been a most 
decided swing from rural to city life, and that it is still on and will 



probably continue until we very radically change our system of 
education. Just what effect our entrance into the world war, our 
consequent demobilization and reconstruction will have upon the 
trend of our people towards the city, remains to be seen. It may, 
and it may not have bearing upon what is generally teraied "the 
back to the land movement." It depends, in my judgment, very 
very largely on how intelligently we handle the problem and just 
how soon we unitedly get down to a consideration of the basic 
factors underlying its solution. So much for our population. 

Some Comparisons in Food Production. 

Now let us glance for a moment, having considered our land 
conditions and the state of our population, at just what progress 
we have made in food production. Remember that al) of these 
figures which I have been giving you, are taken from the United 
States Census Reports and they apply to Continental United States. 
I think that we already agree that wheat, corn and meat production 
form the great back-bone of our consumption. 

With respect to wheat production, in 1880 we produced 
459,483,137 bushels on 35,430,333 acres, being 13 bushels per acre 
and a per capita production of 9.2 bushel. 

In 1890 there were raised 468,373,968 bushels of wheat on 
32,579,514 acres, being 13.9 per acre and a per capita production 
of 7.4 bushel. 

In 1900 there were raised 658,379,259 bushels of wheat on 
52,588,574 acres, being 12.5 bushels per acre and a per capita pro- 
duction of 8.7 bushel. 

In 1910 there were raised 683,379,259 bushels of wheat on 
44,262,592 acres, being 15.4 per acre and a per capita production of 
7.4 bushel. 

The following is quoted from the 13th Census Report of the 
United States, 1910, Vol 5, Page 585: 

"The production of wheat increased from 459,483,000 
bushels in 1879 to 683,379,000 bushels in 1909, an increase 
of 223,896,000 bushels or 48.7 per cent. The population of 
ths country increased 83.4 per cent during the same 
period, and the per capita production of wheat thus 
declined from 9.2 bushels in 1879 to 7.4 bushels in 1908. 
But the exports of wheat also declined during this 
period, so that the per capita amount of wheat retained 
for home consumption increased from 6.1 bushels in 1879 
to 6.5 bushels in 1909." 



The Record Of Corn Production. 

Our production of corn was as follows: 

In 1880 there were raised 1,754,676 bushels of corn on 
62,368,504 acres, being 28.1 per acre and a per capita production 
of 35.0 bushel. 

In 1890 there were raised 2,122,327,547 bushels of com on 
72,087,752 acres, being 29.4 bushels per acre and a per capita pro- 
duction of 33.7 bushels. 

In 1900 there were raised 2,666,324,370 bushels of corn on 
94,913,673 acres, being 28.1 bushels per acre and a per capita pro- 
duction of 35.1 bushels. 

In 1910 there were raised 2,552,189,630 bushels of corn on 
98,382,655 acres, being 25.9 bushels per acre and a per capita pro- 
duction of 27.7 bushels. 

The following is quoted from the 13th Census Report of the 
United States, 1910, Vol. 5, Page 576: 

"The area of corn harvested in 1909 was 98,382,665 
acres; in 1899 it was 94,913,673 acres, the increase for the 
decade thus being 3,468,992 acres or 3.7 per cent. The 
production of corn, however, decreased from 2,666,324,000 
bushels in 1899 to 2,552,190,000 bushels or 4.3 per cent. 
"The acreage of corn has shown an uninterrupted 
increase for the past 30 years, the greatest gain occurring 
between 1889 and 1899. Starting with 62,368,504 acres 
in 1879, it rose to 72,987,752 in 1889, to 94,813,673 in 
1899 and to 98,382,665 in 1909, a gain for the 30 years of 
36,014,161 acres or 57.7 per cent. The production of corn 
was 1,754,592,000 bushels in 1879, 2,122,328,000 bushels 
in 1889, 2,666,324,000 bushels in 1899, and 2,552,190,000 
bushels in 1909. The production in 1909 was thus 
11^,135,000 bushels or 4.3 per cent less than that in 1899, 
while that in 1889 was 543,997,000 bushels, or 25.6 per 
cent greater than that reported ten years earlier. The 
increase in production for the 30 years, 1879 to 1909, was 
797,598,000 bushels, or 4.5 per cent, as compared with an 
increase in population for the same period of 83.4 per 
cent, the production of corn thus appearing not to have 
kept pace with the growth in population. In 1899 the 
per capita amount of corn for home use was 32.3 bushels, 
in 3909 the amount was 27.3 bushels." 



Population Outstripping Food Production. 

So that you will note that with respect to each of these grains 
there has been an increase in population without the corresponding 
increase in volume of production. There has of course, since 1880, 
been tremendous areas of new land put into cultivation but the per 
capita yield has declined and in my judgment will continue to 
decline until we have settled down to a system of agriculture in 
this country that aims primarily at soil enrichment and conserva- 
tion of soil fertility. Until there is bought under cultivation 
additional areas or until a system of soil enrichment and conserva- 
tion of soil fertility is followed, we cannot hope to increase our 
aggregate production. An increasing population under such condi- 
tions means a lower per capita production which in the end can 
only be supplied by the importation of grains from abroad and it 
is a matter well known that we had either actually taken the initial 
step or had this under serious contemplation at the time of the 
outbreak of the European War. 

A Decrease In Meat Animals. 

Now with respect to our meat animals. Since 1900 there has 
been an increase of approximately 29,000,000 in population and a 
decrease of about 7,000,000 in our animal production. 

Since August 1st, 1914, to September 1st, 1917, according to 
United States Government figures, there was a decrease in the 
world supply of meat animals— cattle 28,000,000; hogs 32,000,000; 
sheep 56,000,000 ; while the ratio of destruction, it is reasonable to 
assume, has not abated since September 1st, 1917. Some recent 
figures coming under my observation indicate that it is the belief 
of men who have made a careful study of this phase of the problem 
that at least 40,000,000 head of livestock will be required by Europe 
in her work of rehabilitation after the War, to serve as foundation 
flocks. 

The foregoing leads to the very decided view point, earnestly 
asserted by some and rejected with equal earnestness by others, 
that the greatest problem that now confronts the American people 
is to be assured of an adequate supply of food at reasonable prices 
for her people and an adequate supply of raw materials for her 
industries. It will not avail us greatly if we send abroad our coal, 
our iron, our phosphate, our timber, in fact our capital and with the 
proceeds buy back food and clothing. Sound economics unequivoc- 
ably points the way. We must feed and clothe ourselves in every 



particular and that in abundance. Then shall our national 
prosperity rest upon absolute bed rock. Let it be remembered 
that I am not discussing this problem from the standpoint of the 
present day war emergency condition. I am not unmindful of the 
tremendous duties and tasks imposed, but I am discussing this 
matter from the standpoint of its broad enduring aspects. 

Time To Pay For Spendthrift Habits. 

The figures quoted above with respect to grain would tend to 
indicate that we have been doing that which has often been charged 
that generally speaking we have been a spendthrift nation, living 
up to our natural resources and existing upon the present day fer- 
tility of our soil while waiting for the unearned increment and 
that we have now reached the day of final readjustment. 

With respect to the condition presented in our domestic animal 
resources, it is not a far cry to understand how this has occurred. 
After the Civil War it became the practice to raise both cattle and 
sheep in tremendous herds on the open public domain of the 
Western States; free, if you please, and at no cost per acre for 
grazing. The United States Government tacidly acquiesced in the 
indiscriminate use of her public domain until the actual settler 
demanded it for homestead purposes. The result of this was that 
meat and wool and hides were produced at less cost and with 
greater profit in that area than it could be produced in the old 
sections where there was a rising land value, increased taxation 
and a decreasing fertility, and so the East dropped out of both 
sheep raising and beef cattle production and finally the homesteader 
and now the 640 acre homestead law has operated to the exhaustion 
of the public domain, and he who raised sheep and cattle on the 
free Gk)vernment land has suddenly found himself face to face with 
abandoning his occupation, removing to South or Central America 
or finding a new location within the United States, where conditions 
most nearly approximate those to which he had formerly been 
adapted. 

The World's Need Of Southern Lands. 

That brings us to the consideration of this question: Does or 
does not the world need the 300,000,000 of idle acres in the South 
Atlantic and Gulf States, the larger portion of which lies in the 
South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Area and were produced as 
a by-product of the Naval Stores and Timber operators? And is 



there any burden upon the owners of these lands, either legal or 
moral, in the premises under present day conditions? 

I cannot forebear here to quote at some length from the 
address delivered before you in this hotel on the twenty-seventh 
day of last September by Dr. George M. Rommel, Chief, Animal 
Husbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, D. C. That address was so very thought- 
ful, so very well prepared and so very pertinent, that I have taken 
the liberty before and do again take the liberty on this occasion to 
refer to it and quote from it at some length. 

"The area of these lands is estimated at approxi- 
mately 76,000,000 acres, to which the cutting of timber is 
adding about 10,000,000 acres each year. Eventually the 
total extent of the cut-over timber lands of the South will 
be in the neighborhood of 300,000,000 acres, which is 
greater than the present unsettled public domain of the 
United States. The utilization of these lands is therefore 
very much in the nature of a public obligation, and the 
immensity of the problem leads me to discuss the subject 
somewhat extensively even at the risk of repeating some 
of the statements made at your conference in April last. 
I shall also take the liberty of touching on some subjects 
which do not pertain directly to the necessity for increased 
meat production but which are vital in a consideration of 
the use of these lands for live stock raising. 

The Features Of Constructive Development. 

"Permit me to state in simplest terms the principles 
of the problem as an introduction to the elaboration of the 
argument. The cut-over lands of the South need con- 
structive development based on economic possibilities and 
economic needs. To develop them for live stock produc- 
tion means (1) a minimum requirement for capital, (2) 
a minimum need for man power, and (3) the production 
of human food for which there is now and has been for 
a decade and a half the keenest need and of which there 
is very little danger of overproduction. To develop them 
at this time as farming regions on the other hand means 
(1) exceedingly heavy demands for capital from resources 
already taxed to the utmost, (2) a large demand for man 
power on a supply already undermanned, and (3) the 



production of crops in a market already adequately sup- 
plied. 

"The question of equipment and man-power seems to 
me among the first which must be considered. You 
gentlemen are concerned with the effective utilization of 
areas of many millions of acres. Livestock ranches of a 
hundred thousand acres are common and ranches of 
several hundred thousand or even a million acres are in 
successful operation. The equipment, expense, therefore, 
to put into operation the ranching business on these unde- 
veloped Southern lands, can be worked out by studying 
the requirements shown by the business as already estab- 
lished elsewhere in the United States. In proportion to 
the total area involved, there does not seem to be anything 
insurmountable in this phase of the problem. 

"We may take a similar view of the question of man 
power. The ranching business is like any other business — 
the big, constructive leaders are rare, but, again, like any 
other business, there are sufficient well trained men to 
take hold of any new development of the business which 
is justified by circumstances, which promises to be suc- 
cessful and which is backed by sufficient capital to develop 
it. 

The Question Of Capital. 

"Now let us apply these two factors to the develop- 
ment of the cut-over lands on a purely agricultural basis 
under present conditions. Use the 160 acre homestead 
factor and suppose we start in with the 76,000,000 acres 
now on our hands. Where, in the first place, would the 
money come from to develop more or less half a million 
additional farms in this territory? We must not ignore 
the fact that the great obstacle to the diversified farming 
movement in the South is not the colored brother, nor the 
landlord indisposition to grow anything but cotton until 
the boll-weevil wakes him up, nor even the cattle tick. 

"It is the fact that many, if not most of the banks 
in the South which make a business of agricultural loans 
have only sufficient capital to finance the cotton crop. To 
develop these lands as farms will not only require im- 
mense sums to equip them, but equally great amounts to 
clear them and make them ready for crop production. 



With the present shortage of agricultural capital in the 
South, it does not require the exercise of much imagina- 
tion to realize what would be the effect of an attempt to 
develop them at this time as farming regions. 

The Problem Of Man Power. 

"To get enough competent men to develop these areas 
for cattle or sheep ranching will be a serious problem but 
not an insoluble one. To get approximately half a million 
fai'mers to develop 160 acre homesteads or a quarter of a 
million to develop 320 acre homesteads is a practical im- 
possibility. There are approximately six million farmers 
in the United States. If the drafting of a small percentage 
of their employees into the army is working a hardship on 
the owners, what hope is there then to get nearly ten per 
cent of the owners of farms elsewhere to undertake the 
agricultural development of these cut-over lands? Men 
of no experience in agriculture could not be depended upon 
if they were available, and this phase of the question 
seems to settle itself with a mere statement of the fact." 

It would, therefore, seem to me that while there is no legal 
obligation imposed or entailed upon either the man who now owns 
a large or small area of the so-called cut-over lands or the timber 
operator who is now engaged daily in the production of additional 
areas or acres of cut-over land, to do aught than he has hitherto 
done, it does seem to me that out of all of the foregoing there arises 
a very distinct moral obligation. I would say that ten years ago this 
obligation was just beginning to evolve; that twenty-five years ago 
it did not exist. Let me be more explicit. Does any one contend 
that under our system of property rights that the owner of these 
lands has not the right to remove the resources therefrom, provided 
always he complies with the regulations locally enforced with 
respect to fire and kindred potent possibilities for neighborhood 
damage ? Having removed the timber and produced an area of cut 
over land; no one will dispute his right to have allowed it to again 
grow up in trees or to pay taxes thereon and allow it to remain idle 
or to decline to pay taxes and allow it to revert to the state and 
that for the very simple reason that all things considered his cut- 
over lands were in competition with the free public domain of the 
United States and all of the education and all of the trend and all 
of the psychology of our people was westward and not eastward or 
southward ? 



An Increasing Moral Obligation. 

The world wanted his naval stores and it wanted his lumber 
and he had an undoubted right to sever it and sell it and he must 
perforce leave a by-product, cut-over lands, behind him and I can- 
not consider that there existed either a legal or moral obligation to 
do more than that which he did. If there was a great underlying 
problem involved, the problem belonged to the state under all the 
circumstances then existing rather than to the individual owner. 
But it seems to me that beginning about ten years ago there has 
been a shifting and while there still remains so far as the legal 
obligation is concerned, no change in the status, there has been a 
growing and ever increasing moral obligation. And, added to this 
there can be no doubt that the assumption of this obligation on the 
part of the owner and operators is also fraught with tremendous 
possibilities in the way of profit. This is essentially an era of 
service. Sooner or later those of our people who are unable to 
satisfy their land hunger from the remaining portions of the public 
domain, will turn to and should be brought to the more fertile areas 
of our cut-over lands of the South. All of this means land classi- 
fication and sooner or later land classification must become an 
accomplished fact if we are to have a maximum or even a minimum 
for that matter, of efficiency with respect to the transition of our 
privately owned, idle lands into actual, active agriculture. With 
your permission I will quote from an address delivered by me 
before the North Carolina State Forestry Association at Wilming- 
ton, North Carolina, on January 25th, 1918. 

The Necessity For Land Classification. 

"It seems to m6 that the day has now arrived when 
we are face to face with land classification as a basis for 
further agricultural development; and with land classifi- 
cation there undoubtedly comes reforestation. If I were 
to suggest a practical plan of operation of the South 
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Area, I would suggest the 
enactment by the congress of legislation creating a com- 
mission to be composed of one representative from the 
Department of Agriculture, one from the Department of 
Labor and one from the Department of the Interior which 
has been charged with the disposition of the public domain 
of the United States. These three should consitute a 
permanent federal classification and colonization com- 



mission. It is true that they would have no jurisdiction 
except in government owned land, but they should stand 
ready to aid and assist whenever the state of North Car- 
olina or the citizens of that state sees fit to avail them- 
selves of the co-operation. I would have them divide the 
lands into A, B and C classes. 

''Class A — Those immediately available for general 
agriculture. 

"Class B — Those adapted to grazing and where prac- 
ticable, reforestation. 

"Class C — Those which will not be during our gen- 
eration or the next, fit for either farming or grazing, 
those I would devote to reforestation. 

"Now comes the crisis of the entire reforestation 
problem upon lands under private ownership not within 
national forests. Who will defray the expense? Per- 
sonally my mind is very conclusively made up — that the 
state must either remit the taxes and furish ample pro- 
duction for a period of forty years, or else the owners of 
such lands must eventually relinquish them to the state 
for taxes and the state will find itself under the necessity 
of engaging in this form of activity; unless, on the con- 
trary, we are going to admit that we are going to continue 
to allow the owner or his agent to exploit the poorer areas 
for practical development, to the unsuspecting home- 
seeker." 

The Situation Summed Up. 

So that to sum up in a few words ; — the great proportion of 
the idle lands of the South are cut-over lands; — that these lands 
have been produced by the naval stores and timber operators that 
the flood tide of production is now in the territory of the Southern 
Pine Association ; that there has never existed and does not now 
exist under our great Anglo Saxon system of land tenure, any 
legal obligation upon the operator to do aught else than that which 
he has done save to properly safe-guard the lives and property of 
his neighbors under the local police regulations ; that owing to the 
shifting of conditions generally and perhaps too a shift in the 
public mind and the public attitude, a moral obligation is being 
forced upon those who own or who are producing these lands to 
aid and assist both collectively and individually in their prepara- 
tion for and their actual transition, so far as the more adaptable 



and more fertile areas are concerned into the hands of actual 
settlers for general agricultural purposes; that pending the day 
when there shall be a sufficient number of applicants to people all 
of this area, it should be classified and that which it not now 
fit for immediate profitable, general agriculture should both 
individually and collectively be devoted as far as possible to the 
production of live stock and the still less adaptable areas to the 
reproduction of timber ; that the Federal Government has no direct 
legal responsibility in the premises but she has a moral obligation 
and she would, no doubt, acknowledge it and stand ready to co- 
operate out of the abundance of her knowledge and experience in 
disposing of the public domain ; that the various states affected will 
co-operate when an awakened public conscience has been brought 
to see the necessity; that the primary move which by every con- 
sideration is fraught with expectation of profit, must come from 
the owners of these lands themselves acting intelligently, unitedly, 
concertedly and with persistent purpose and sustained effort. 

Soldiers Who Will Turn To Farming. 

There is one other phase that I cannot conclude without 
referring to. These United States in support of a great principle 
of humanity, in support of common justice, in support of decency 
amongst nations, has entered the great world's struggle. How long 
or how short its duration no man can say. Sooner or later we will 
be mobilized a million, two million, or even five million of the 
flower of American manhood. The experience of all wars tends to 
point that the majority of these men will never again return to 
sedentary life; that their preference will be for the great out of 
doors. Where shall they go? Remain in Europe, go to South 
America, Australia, Asia, or come back to take their place in the 
great upward march of the great American Republic? What would 
be more to the point than to prepare to give these men available 
homesteads? Remember, the public domain is gone. The approxi- 
mate 300,000,000 acres of land remaining in the South Atlantic 
and Gulf States is the only great body of low price lands on the 
American continent capable of high development. It is under 
private ownership. There is no legal obligation on the part of the 
United States government and none on the part of the states to 
meet this problem, but to my mind there is a tremendous moral 
obligation. Whether it will be ultimately met remains to be seen. 
Recently the National House of Representatives by a vote of 101 



to 31 declined to take this question under consideration at this 
time, holding that we were now mostly concerned with winning the 
war, and not with what we would do after the war had closed. 
Nevertheless, I apprehend that this question will not down. Eng- 
land has foreseen it, and is preparing for it and has been for some 
time past. A commission headed by Sir Rider Haggard has been 
making a thorough investigation with respect to the available land 
in Great Britain, of the Colonial possessions available after the war 
for agricultural pursuits for her demobilized soldiers. 

In an article prepared a few weeks since with respect to this 
question I used the following language: 

A Federal Classification Commission. 

"It has always seemed to the writer that sooner or 
later since the near exhaustion of the public domain, that 
we must come to land classification as a basis for intelli- 
gen, efficient, and economic use of our remaining unused 
lands, especially for agricultural purposes. A reference 
to the census returns very readily indicates the areas of 
unused and idle lands in the respective states. Great areas 
are to be found in the upper lake states, known as cut- 
over lands. Quite a respectable balance sheet is to be 
found in some of the middle Atlantic and even in the New 
England states, known as abandoned farms. Millions 
upon millions of acres can be found in the Southern states 
and quite a balance in the Southwestern states and still 
other areas in the Pacific northwest. Is it not good 
reasoning to assume that only the very fertile areas 
should be adapted to our requirements and that as our 
requirements lengthen through the years and our standard 
perhaps lowers, that the less fertile areas be then 
absorbed? Ought we allow the less fertile areas to be 
exploited from the purely commercial standpoint, to the 
unsuspecting and uninitiated but willing seeker for agri- 
cultural lands ? It was earnestly to have been hoped that 
Congress would have seen fit to have established a com- 
mission in Washington, of one representative from the De- 
partment of Labor, one representative from the Depart- 
ment of the Interior and one representative from the De- 
partment of Agricultural these three representing the 
respective secretaries in charge of these Departments; 



these three to be known as the Federal Commission on 
Land Classification and Agricultural Development and 
Colonization. 

Directing The Seeker For Land. 

"Whenever a state or the citizens of a state should 
see fit to avail themselves of the services of that commis- 
sion, a classification of any lands within the state could 
be had, fixing the economic area of each unit, adaptability 
to use and financing through the Federal Farm Loan 
Bank would seem easy of accomplishment. The joint 
state and Federal commissions having pronounced their 
judgment, it remains for the owner to comply or other- 
wise. If he accepted the classification and the so called 
standardization with respect to the area of unit, adapta- 
bility and financing, the Federal Government and the 
State Government should undertake to turn the seeker in 
his direction. In the case of demobilized soldier, it ought 
to be very easy for the Federal Government to ascertain 
before discharge his wishes in the premises. In other 
words, we ought to have some preparation for him when 
the day of demobilization comes. If it is left to private 
citizens, human nature, being as it is, we are quite likely 
to fail utterly. Since congress made its recent pronounce- 
ment, the questions arise — Was it worth doing? Is it 
worth doing? Will congress yet realize that it perhaps 
passed over a wonderful opportunity to lay a foundation, 
strong and enduring, against the rising tide of social 
unrest within our gates ? It would seem now to rest upon 
the crystallization of public sentiment and expressed 
demand for early solution." 

The Land Owner's Great Opportunity. 

As a concluding word, I would say to the members of the 
Southern Pine Association that there has never existed such an 
opportunity as does exist today in their hands for concrete con- 
structive work of fundamental advantage both to the nation and 
to the state and that there is also the added advantage and lure 
of profit far greater perhaps than that which has come to them 
hitherto from the exploitation of the naval stores and timber. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



003 154 495 6 



